Look, people, nowhere have the Hindus, Catholics, or Jews stated anything along the lines of "I'm going to stop this game being made," or, "I'm going to sue Smite into oblivion." They don't like the game, they've said they don't like the game, they've tried to talk to the developer about the game so that maybe the game could be changed and then they could like it, and (finally) they're encouraging their practitioners not to buy the game. These are all perfectly okay things; the creators of Smite aren't the only ones protected by Freedom of Speech.

This right here?

1337mokro:I can say anything I want about it whenever I want to. So please, go cry in the corner silently.

You are a hypocrite. I'm actually kind of amazed at the stunning display of cognitive dissonance that must be at work to allow someone to claim "I can say anything I want" and then in the very next sentence order the other group to be silent.

Beyond that, whether you are legally allowed to say a thing is irrelevant to the question of whether or not saying a thing makes you disrespectful, a jackass, or a disrespectful jackass. For instance, I was pretty hard on 1337mokro right there, and I was kind of a dick about it. I'm allowed to say such things, but I'm still a disrespectful jackass for saying them in the manner that I did, particularly since I singled out 1337mokro even though there are many, many posts I could have chosen (sorry, you lost the random pick) or, better yet, I could have made my point without singling out an individual--I didn't because I think this shows a stronger, clearer position, and I couldn't have made this paragraph's point as well without showing legally acceptable jackassness.

Is Smite disrespectful? Of course it is. This is an idea born out of high school thought experiments ("Shiva would totally murder Odin, man!) and not religious enlightenment. They weren't aiming for respect, they were aiming for the Rule of Cool. Personally, I didn't think them jackasses until COO Todd Harris decided to be snarky in his response to the Hindus.

Should it be made? Of course. Free speech is free.

That being said, no one should be surprised that people being disrespected are upset that they're being disrespected. I mean, come on, don't piss on them and tell them it's rain. Additionally, people coming together and telling a company what they think of the company's product is basically how business works (Mass Effect 3 ending, anyone?)

So let's all take a step back and a deep breath, read some Cracked, and not act like dicks today.

So let's all take a step back and a deep breath, read some Cracked, and not act like dicks today.

I award you an internet cookie.

I'm an atheist or an agnostic, depending on the day, but good lord, people, lay off the hatred. The people in this thread ranting about how much they hate religious people are just as bad as the religious nuts screaming about the people in this thread are going to burn in one of several hells.

Can't we all just take a fricking chill pill, listen to some music, and agree to disagree on this one? (You know, WITHOUT assuming the other side is evil/stupid/lying/etc...)

I haven't really seen Smite until now. Looked it up, and it seems like a cool game, but to be honest... I can kiiiinda see where they're coming from. Come one guys, this community can be incredibly insufferable at times, but I don't usually expect you guys to overreact this much. They just don't appreciate that the diety they believe in is being included in this game. I know, insane, but their followers kinda respect those dudes. No need to brandish the prickish "Speghetti Monster" comments yet.

Look, people, nowhere have the Hindus, Catholics, or Jews stated anything along the lines of "I'm going to stop this game being made," or, "I'm going to sue Smite into oblivion." They don't like the game, they've said they don't like the game, they've tried to talk to the developer about the game so that maybe the game could be changed and then they could like it, and (finally) they're encouraging their practitioners not to buy the game. These are all perfectly okay things; the creators of Smite aren't the only ones protected by Freedom of Speech.

Out of all the member commenting in this thread, Azuaron seems to be the only one that's even attempting to look at things from a rational perspective here. And that's turrible.

If only they'd just admit religion as a work of fiction, then they could copyright it! Problem solved.

First of all, you can copyright, say, science, which is not fiction, so being fiction is obviously not a requirement for copyright.

Secondly, everything older than Mickey Mouse is in the public domain, so they couldn't get copyright protection anyway.

Basically, not a single part of your statement is true.

First of all, by "copyright science" do you mean "patent technology", two entirely different things.

Secondly, it was a joke.

Basically, not a single part of your post was relevant.

If I meant "patent technology" I would have said "patent technology". I meant that if I took a word for word copy of an article out of, say, The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and published it as my own, they would hit me with a DMCA notice and, possibly, sue me for lost profits.

Look, people, nowhere have the Hindus, Catholics, or Jews stated anything along the lines of "I'm going to stop this game being made," or, "I'm going to sue Smite into oblivion." They don't like the game, they've said they don't like the game, they've tried to talk to the developer about the game so that maybe the game could be changed and then they could like it, and (finally) they're encouraging their practitioners not to buy the game. These are all perfectly okay things; the creators of Smite aren't the only ones protected by Freedom of Speech.

This right here?

1337mokro:I can say anything I want about it whenever I want to. So please, go cry in the corner silently.

You are a hypocrite. I'm actually kind of amazed at the stunning display of cognitive dissonance that must be at work to allow someone to claim "I can say anything I want" and then in the very next sentence order the other group to be silent.

Beyond that, whether you are legally allowed to say a thing is irrelevant to the question of whether or not saying a thing makes you disrespectful, a jackass, or a disrespectful jackass. For instance, I was pretty hard on 1337mokro right there, and I was kind of a dick about it. I'm allowed to say such things, but I'm still a disrespectful jackass for saying them in the manner that I did, particularly since I singled out 1337mokro even though there are many, many posts I could have chosen (sorry, you lost the random pick) or, better yet, I could have made my point without singling out an individual--I didn't because I think this shows a stronger, clearer position, and I couldn't have made this paragraph's point as well without showing legally acceptable jackassness.

Is Smite disrespectful? Of course it is. This is an idea born out of high school thought experiments ("Shiva would totally murder Odin, man!) and not religious enlightenment. They weren't aiming for respect, they were aiming for the Rule of Cool. Personally, I didn't think them jackasses until COO Todd Harris decided to be snarky in his response to the Hindus.

Should it be made? Of course. Free speech is free.

That being said, no one should be surprised that people being disrespected are upset that they're being disrespected. I mean, come on, don't piss on them and tell them it's rain. Additionally, people coming together and telling a company what they think of the company's product is basically how business works (Mass Effect 3 ending, anyone?)

So let's all take a step back and a deep breath, read some Cracked, and not act like dicks today.

There is nothing hypocritical about that. Just because speech is free and unrestricted doesn't mean all speech is a good idea. Just because they legally can complain about it does not mean they ought to. There's nothing wrong with telling someone to shut the hell up, at least not in-and-of-itself. And if I think it's a good idea to complain about one product for a particular reason in a particular instance that doesn't mean I have to approve of all complaining for any reason forevermore Amen.

-The protesters were issues death threats.-The protesters were turning this into a crusade.-The protesters were using "YOU WILL BURN IN HELL, HEATHENS!" language and embarrassing themselves.

Instead, this is a very reasonable "Hey, that's pretty insulting, could you please *not* do that?" There's no crusade, no fatwas, no threats to murder the creators, not even threats of pointless lawsuits. What we're seeing here is a bunch of different religions getting together and agreeing, reasonably, that this is insulting, and standing together on a mutual point, respectfully.

There's a good debate here, but it's NOT on this forum right now. The only juvenile ranting I've seen from this story has been the first page and half of mindless rage.

First of all, you can copyright, say, science, which is not fiction, so being fiction is obviously not a requirement for copyright.

Secondly, everything older than Mickey Mouse is in the public domain, so they couldn't get copyright protection anyway.

Basically, not a single part of your statement is true.

First of all, by "copyright science" do you mean "patent technology", two entirely different things.

Secondly, it was a joke.

Basically, not a single part of your post was relevant.

If I meant "patent technology" I would have said "patent technology". I meant that if I took a word for word copy of an article out of, say, The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and published it as my own, they would hit me with a DMCA notice and, possibly, sue me for lost profits.

Or any textbook.

Or any nonfiction book.

Or any news article.

These are all things that are not fiction, yet copyrightable.

Joke's aren't funny if they're just incorrect nonsense.

Science, as you suggested, cannot be copyright. A non-fiction book, a book about science for example, can be copyrighted as a literary work. Again, there's a huge difference. Just as you can't copyright scientific terms, you cannot copyright historical figures, there for if religion is meant to be taken as a work of non-fiction then the figures in it cannot be copyrighted.

Everything you list is copyrighting the authors words; not the people, subjects, etc of the work.

Jokes aren't funny if you don't have a sense of humor, or if you're a bit slow and they go over your head.

Rooster Cogburn:There is nothing hypocritical about that. Just because speech is free and unrestricted doesn't mean all speech is a good idea. Just because they legally can complain about it does not mean they ought to. There's nothing wrong with telling someone to shut the hell up, at least not in-and-of-itself. And if I think it's a good idea to complain about one product for a particular reason in a particular instance that doesn't mean I have to approve of all complaining for any reason forevermore Amen.

A simple question: Do you even comprehend how dissonant the inciting statement was?

Let me lay it out for you.

"I can say anything I want about it whenever I want to. So please, go cry in the corner silently."

I can say anything I want about it whenever I want to. --> This indicates that the speaker takes pride in his free speech, and doesn't care who it hurts or offends. While this is legal under the Constitution, with certain very tight restrictions (assuming America here, based on previous discussion, but many other countries possess very similar laws), it is still highly juvenile. Empathy and enlightened self-interest are basic steps in human development, after all.

So please, go cry in the corner silently. --> This indicates that the speaker DOES NOT WISH to hear any other points of view: that the speaker does not respect the rights of others to enjoy the same free he/she enjoys. This is not only juvenile, it speaks of a lack of basic understanding and comprehension of the very purpose of the right of free speech.

On topic: Can Smite be made? Absolutely. Should it be? That's the debate. Obviously, some feel it should be, others disagree, but the artist will produce, and that will be that. What in here required such ferocity?

Now, on to your statement. Throughout much of it, you seem to express the same inability to comprehend that rights for you mean rights for others, and that speech you agree with is not the speech that needs protected most, but rather, it is unpopular speech that needs sanctuary, but I'll assume I'm simply reading your post incorrectly, and focus on this line:

Just because speech is free and unrestricted doesn't mean all speech is a good idea.

Now, I'm not going to disagree. There is dangerous speech (Yelling "fire" in the theater, perhaps, or revealing information about national security.) but these boundaries are very tightly kept by the supreme legal authorities in a free land. What part of "We disagree" requires that society slam down upon them with the burning censor stamp?

-The protesters were issues death threats.-The protesters were turning this into a crusade.-The protesters were using "YOU WILL BURN IN HELL, HEATHENS!" language and embarrassing themselves.

Instead, this is a very reasonable "Hey, that's pretty insulting, could you please *not* do that?" There's no crusade, no fatwas, no threats to murder the creators, not even threats of pointless lawsuits. What we're seeing here is a bunch of different religions getting together and agreeing, reasonably, that this is insulting, and standing together on a mutual point, respectfully.

There's a good debate here, but it's NOT on this forum right now. The only juvenile ranting I've seen from this story has been the first page and half of mindless rage.

Escapists, you're better than this.

It saddens me that the 2nd most rational comment in this entire thread had to come from a dude named Fapmaster. What have we as a gaming community become?!?--------------------------------

B: first amendment, bitch. and sure, while the first doesn't cover unwarranted slander, IT DOES COVER FUCKING FAIRY TALES.

C: i can't wait for the Jesus expansion.

Can you please point me to the link in the article where the protesters threatened legal action to stop this "illegal activity"? I'm pretty sure no one made that claim except for voices in the minds of certain posters.

I am an atheist and even I find the image of Kali incredibly offensive, guys get into perspective, this isn't a small group of people hiding behind religion to get something they personally don't like banned, this game is quite clearly degrading deities like Kali.

I know that the I am an atheist opener may get some, hopefully most, saying so? but it was put there to discourage people from I'm a religious *insert your pick of swear words here*.

I get the idea behind this outcry: people of the Hindu faith don't want to see their religion treated as a toy. Gaming has yet to treat the topic of religion well. I don't think they're reacting the right way though. Encourage people to ignore the game, and hold it up as an example on not treating the topic properly. After all, I don't remember a huge deal being made about Final Fantasy 10.

There is nothing hypocritical about that. Just because speech is free and unrestricted doesn't mean all speech is a good idea. Just because they legally can complain about it does not mean they ought to. There's nothing wrong with telling someone to shut the hell up, at least not in-and-of-itself. And if I think it's a good idea to complain about one product for a particular reason in a particular instance that doesn't mean I have to approve of all complaining for any reason forevermore Amen.

There are many ways to express the view that something someone else has said is disagreeable to you, incorrect, or, even, probably shouldn't have been said. Many of these ways can be expressed without making you a hypocrite.

When someone criticizes what you say, and your response is, "I can say what I want, so shut up," you're a hypocrite. It's really about understanding one's personal rights but not extending that understanding to others that makes one a hypocrite in this instance.

Beyond that, other than our one disagreement about what constitutes hypocrisy, we seem to be saying the same thing--if you'd read the part of my post about disagreeable jackasses, you'd know I already brought up a number of the points that you did, and also basically told a number of people that they shouldn't be saying what they were saying, but did so in a way that did not impugn their right to say it or make me a hypocrite.

And, this is getting somewhat recursive, but but if you think it's a good idea to complain about one product for a particular reason in a particular instance, whether or not you approve of other complaints towards other products is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not people should be allowed to complain about products.

starwarsgeek:I get the idea behind this outcry: people of the Hindu faith don't want to see their religion treated as a toy. Gaming has yet to treat the topic of religion well. I don't think they're reacting the right way though. Encourage people to ignore the game, and hold it up as an example on not treating the topic properly. After all, I don't remember a huge deal being made about Final Fantasy 10.

Final Fantasy tends to just toss "impressive" names onto unrelated creatures. It probably never even popped onto their radar. Smite, on the other hand, is directly marketing "Play as this god/goddess and whup some divine ass!" It's a little more... direct.

It's the difference between someone saying they "banged ur mom" and that person creating a lifelike inflatable doll of your mother, banging it, and then mailing you the explicit video, complete with recorded sounds of your mother's orgasm. One, most people would brush off, the other, people might care about.

Not saying I disagree with Smite, I've had friends say the test runs were a lot of fun, but there is a matter of perspective to consider for those who don't share our worldview.

Anyways ... I do get the drift, but yet again, it's an overreaction (and I'm not sure whether the Catholic church just uses this as an opportunity to fix their "reputation" o.o)

I think the Catholic Church (despite reputation, it's filled with some really smart people) is looking at this as a legal ground game. If Smite flies against the Hindu faith, then the next step is the Abrahamic religions, which means Smite 2.0 will have Jesus and Mohammed in a slap-fight. The Catholic Church obviously doesn't want this, so it picks the early fight on someone else's turf, joining into a united front to build consensus.

Enlightened self interest and establishing precedent. Maybe even honest respect, but definitely the first two.

starwarsgeek:I get the idea behind this outcry: people of the Hindu faith don't want to see their religion treated as a toy. Gaming has yet to treat the topic of religion well. I don't think they're reacting the right way though. Encourage people to ignore the game, and hold it up as an example on not treating the topic properly. After all, I don't remember a huge deal being made about Final Fantasy 10.

Final Fantasy tends to just toss "impressive" names onto unrelated creatures. It probably never even popped onto their radar. Smite, on the other hand, is directly marketing "Play as this god/goddess and whup some divine ass!" It's a little more... direct.

It's the difference between someone saying they "banged ur mom" and that person creating a lifelike inflatable doll of your mother, banging it, and then mailing you the explicit video, complete with recorded sounds of your mother's orgasm. One, most people would brush off, the other, people might care about.

Not saying I disagree with Smite, I've had friends say the test runs were a lot of fun, but there is a matter of perspective to consider for those who don't share our worldview.

I'm not talking about impressive sounding names, but the story of FFX.

I think the answer is no. Nobody should be forced to agree with religion, even casually. I don't care if religious people get butthurt if I find something fundamentally wrong with their beliefs. If I make something considered "offensive" to a religious figure I have every right to, as does Hi-Rez. Religion loves to censor.

starwarsgeek:I get the idea behind this outcry: people of the Hindu faith don't want to see their religion treated as a toy. Gaming has yet to treat the topic of religion well. I don't think they're reacting the right way though. Encourage people to ignore the game, and hold it up as an example on not treating the topic properly. After all, I don't remember a huge deal being made about Final Fantasy 10.

Final Fantasy tends to just toss "impressive" names onto unrelated creatures. It probably never even popped onto their radar. Smite, on the other hand, is directly marketing "Play as this god/goddess and whup some divine ass!" It's a little more... direct.

It's the difference between someone saying they "banged ur mom" and that person creating a lifelike inflatable doll of your mother, banging it, and then mailing you the explicit video, complete with recorded sounds of your mother's orgasm. One, most people would brush off, the other, people might care about.

Not saying I disagree with Smite, I've had friends say the test runs were a lot of fun, but there is a matter of perspective to consider for those who don't share our worldview.

I'm not talking about impressive sounding names, but the story of FFX.

Thing is, that's not direct enough. Corrupt churches, false gods, those are all included inside a lot of religious texts. Again, someone could get offended, but it's nowhere near as direct.

Now, if they'd named the Maesters the "College of Cardinals", called Yevon the tetragrammaton, and had you battle the Undead Pope John Paul II, I think it would have gotten more notice.

Personally, I'd have pointed more towards Assassin's Creed II, where you do fist fight the pope, but then again, Borgia was a dick in real life, too, and I don't think the Church wants to fight that battle, and would rather just ignore that entire era.

Science, as you suggested, cannot be copyright. A non-fiction book, a book about science for example, can be copyrighted as a literary work. Again, there's a huge difference. Just as you can't copyright scientific terms, you cannot copyright historical figures, there for if religion is meant to be taken as a work of non-fiction then the figures in it cannot be copyrighted.

Everything you list is copyrighting the authors words; not the people, subjects, etc of the work.

Science can be copyrighted in exactly the manner I suggested: I cannot reproduce an article word-for-word that I did not write without violating copyright law. That's the manner I suggested, and that's how the law works.

And, while you can't copyright historical figures, you can copyright the portrayal of historical figures. For instance, if I take a picture of President Obama, I own the copyright to that picture. No one else can use that picture without my permission.

Likewise, if I write a nonfiction book about Joe Johannasmith, a small town grocer, no one else can write a book about Joe Johannasmith unless they go talk to Joe and people who know Joe and do their own research. If everything they know about Joe was acquired through reading my book, even though everything's nonfiction, I own the copyright to that portrayal of Joe Johannasmith, and no one else can write a book about him without doing independent research.

Beyond that, these religions still came about millennia prior to the invention of copyright law, and even if they weren't, they'd have been put into the public domain shortly (relatively speaking) after their creation.

mindlesspuppet:Jokes aren't funny if you don't have a sense of humor, or if you're a bit slow and they go over your head.

-The protesters were issues death threats.-The protesters were turning this into a crusade.-The protesters were using "YOU WILL BURN IN HELL, HEATHENS!" language and embarrassing themselves.

Instead, this is a very reasonable "Hey, that's pretty insulting, could you please *not* do that?" There's no crusade, no fatwas, no threats to murder the creators, not even threats of pointless lawsuits. What we're seeing here is a bunch of different religions getting together and agreeing, reasonably, that this is insulting, and standing together on a mutual point, respectfully.

There's a good debate here, but it's NOT on this forum right now. The only juvenile ranting I've seen from this story has been the first page and half of mindless rage.

Escapists, you're better than this.

Could not agree more. I kind of pleased to see religions setting beliefs aside to agree on a matter.

I have to admit the idea of Catholics, Buddhists, and Hindus all working together and treating each other like "Brothers from across the pond" so to speak actually brought a smile to my face, and that picture didn't help.

But, anyways, as a Catholic, I believe the game should be made... Mostly because this is a country of free religious thought, and no game involving religions or religious imagery should honestly be banned unless it's purposely trying to be disrespectful and offensive to another person's beliefs (or lack of beliefs).